Austin wrote:Surely DPSU is not above corruption , if DPSU can use their clout so can the private sector .At least with DPSU its under MOD with Pvt sector MOD cant control any stuff and as shown with global experience Pvt sector can deliver but with higher cost year after year , at least with DPSU if you leave individual corruption aside which can affect any sector the money revolves within government.
You are starting from a premise that private sector will perforce do something detrimental to the interest of the MOD/GOI/Services - well, if that is the argument, than everything should be produced by the government controlled companies. Right? Wrong. That is why there is competitive bidding and terms & conditions.
As it is, a DPSU itself cannot produce the whole FICV w/o external inputs like engines, EO Sensors and design. The very same DPSU will also be dependent on external factors of production and economics...Also, what control are we referring to here and why? As it is, GOI has all the power in the world to makes rules and regulations to control and regulate the sector. These are nothing but bogies put up to stymie the development of private sector and let the DPSU continue with their monopoly.
Its better to reform the DPSU if required part sale to Pvt sector , rather then just leave it jump to Pvt sector as solution to all problems , if MOD cant control what it has it would never be able to control what it does not own.
Please, let us stop these irrelevant arguments here...MOD has (and had) all the time in the world to reform the DPSU and OFB. The problem is that screw-drivergiri in DPSU suits vested interests in MOD pretty well and they will stonewall any changes. Last thing one needs is to wish for Godot and derail the procurement cycle of the Service(s).
If Pvt sector increases prices mid way MOD cant do any thing but will be forced to accept what Pvt Sec has to say because they wont have a choice ...fixed prices can always be negotiation and terms agreed even with DPSU ..I think this is more of management issue with DPSU that needs to be solved.
Oh! well....the pigs can fly, it will be discovered that moon is made of green cheese and pakis will start behaving like human beings...Please re-read what I wrote earlier. It is to prevent these things that there are contracts which finalize terms & conditions in advance...and unlike our Russian friends, people actually honor these. You can do better than bring in such inane arguments.
IMO right now OFB will do a better task with FICV over any Pvt sector out there because of its experience , there is no harm in letting OFB do it while subcontracting key system to big private player rather then letting Pvt sector handle it all for which they have no experience and are unprepared ..its more of a choice between two evil , its better to choose the lesser one which ATM looks OFB
You seem to forget that Indian private sector will partner with experienced foreign player - more experienced than OFB/DRDO combined - to produce the FICV. As it is, OFB is participating in JV with L&T...so, let them come forward with a competitive design and price quote and win the contract fare and square. Why this fervent appeal to protectionism?
AFAIK DRDO designed Ambulance version of BMP and even launchers for various missile based on BMP ...likely they were made in OFB ...they might not be best but thats what we have now. QC issue needs to be solved it cant be wished away.
BMP-2 has been produced in this country for donkey years and ambulance or C&C version of BMP-2 is nothing radical when compared to base BMP-2. These are hardly any shining examples of production and QC prowess of OFB.
At least with the competencies that DRDO and OFB have they can do a decent job with BMP , Its not me batting for BMP but thats the hard reality for now. I am sure BMP-2 is not the best FICV out there as they have been developed in 60's but looking at the upgrade path that army has for BMP-2 it will be a while that it would be in service.
Yes, BMP-2 will serve for quite some while in the IA - as T-72 will continue to serve. And that is why it is being upgraded - because the transition to newer FICV will take time. As is the case with T-90 and Arjun. But that does not make it ideal choice or base to serve as FICV platform.
Building new FICV around BMP is not a bad idea if they ( DRDO + OFB ) can build it better with improved comfort , firepower and modular protection besides latest gen Electronics ....in the end you will have much great logistics commonness and lower operating cost.
What logistic commonality are you talking about? With the kind of deep upgrade that you mention - nothing in old BMP-2 will be worth retaining...you need new engines, new EO Sensors, newer gun and ATGM and FCS.....what is left common with the BMP-2 in service to warrant this commonality logic? Unless the idea is to perpetrate a fraud like T-90 on IA, there is nothing in common between a 60's design and a FICV designed and build from ground up for today's battlefield.
All the modern western FICV might be cool but you can get 80 % of what they have even with modified BMP design for the rest 20 % you end up paying a bomb and end up with two different system which might have little in common if at all not to mention you end up paying huge lic cost , TOT cost and import cost which ends up being higher unit cost and operating cost.
You can spare these hand wave kind o irrelevant arguments. What 80% things or features are you referring about? Care to point them out? And what kind of deep upgrade to design is then required to accommodate these 80% features?
Fact of the matter is that BMP-2 design is an evolutionary dead-end. Like T-90 is. If you try and add too much lipstick and mascara to this outdated design, you will end with similar problems like T-90.
And there is no bigger indication of the same than the Abhay IFV developed by DRDO - it has nothing in common with BMP-2 and borrows heavily from recent advances around the globe in 'COOL' western IFVs
If they still think its worth paying that much then its fine too. At the least they should let OFB manufacture it and let critical component subcontract to pvt player instead of Pvt player solely manning the game.
Do you realize the contradiction in your own argument here?
You want OFB and DPSU to retain the monopoly in screw-drivergiri...again, everything worthwhile comes from private sector but ASSEMBLY rests with OFB. Time OFB and DPSU are given a kick in the nuts and made to compete with private sectors. And whether you like it or not, it is already happening in case of FICV.
BMP-3 was built during cold war where Higher Stand off fire power ,NBC, amphibious capability with good frontal protection was of higher importance over sustained crew comfort and protection that we see with modern design , every one thought then that they would be fighting with Nuclear weapons as backdrop , which made the choices good for its type.
You are joking, right? Higher protection? They removed the engine from the front to rear - which means that unlike earlier BMP-2, where the engine offered some protection, in this case, the crew for sure is toast - from mission kill, the design went to catastrophic kill.
Todays design has less of emphasis of fire power but with moderate firepower , greater crew comfort and protection and modern electronics and modular armour is what is needed today to invade and sustain operation. Both design are good for what it was designed for its time.
Less emphasis on firepower? Just because Russians equipped BMP-3 with a mix and match of 30 mm and 100 mm gun...does not mean others are less equipped in terms of firepower. BMP-3 was symptomatic of Russian design philosophy which has no relevance outside of Russia.